from the La-Cosa-Nostra:-Large-Appliance-Division dept

We're used to corporate battles over product placement, intellectual property and market share, but they usually take the form of courtroom disputes, targeted advertising and bland mission statements. But two major consumer electronics companies' recent fight has not only found its way into a courtroom, but also involves the alleged deployment of Mafia-esque tactics.

Last fall, Samsung placed some of its washing machines in a German shopping mall as a teaser/advertisement for its appearance at an upcoming trade show. That's when things turned surprisingly unprofessional.

LG, of course, has denied this. It doesn't deny the fact that it sent a small team of executives to the mall to check out the competition. It also doesn't deny that its execs did a little stress testing of the washing machine's door, something that was captured by the mall's security cameras. (See video below.)

Samsung claims LG's personnel "broke" the washing machine door deliberately in order to sabotage Samsung's reputation ahead of the upcoming show. LG claims that if the door was indeed broken by its employees' downward shoves, it's only because Samsung's washer doors are crap.

This dispute eventually made its way from mall display to the Korean courts. LG tried to head off Samsung's lawsuit by offering to purchase the washing machines (which retail for more than $2700 a piece). Samsung replied with a curt "Thanks, but see you in court."

The end result? An indictment of the executives involved in last year's Man vs. Competitor's Machine shoving match.

A top LG Electronics Inc. executive has been indicted by Seoul prosecutors for allegedly vandalizing several high-end washing machines manufactured by rival Samsung Electronics Co.

An LG Electronics spokeswoman said Sunday that Jo Seong-jin, head of the company’s home-appliance division, has been indicted on charges of deliberately damaging four Samsung “Crystal Blue” washing machines ahead of a trade show in Germany last September. Mr. Jo has also been charged with defamation and obstruction of business, she said.

Two other company executives have been indicted on similar charges over the same incident, the spokeswoman said.

LG had countersued for defamation and evidence tampering (it claims Samsung accessed the washing machines during their trip back from Berlin to be presented in court), but that will no longer move forward as a result of this court decision.

LG is now fighting back via its own corporate channel. It uploaded a video containing the questionable "examination" performed at the German shopping center, along with comparative demonstrations of everyday usage that supposedly exert as much strain on washing machine doors as Mr. Jo did. For reasons only known to LG, the video contains the sort of electronic library music more suited for painfully boring 5th period educational films than corporate exculpatory efforts… so heads up on that.

Fighting for a larger share of a $400 billion market is never going to be pretty, but until now, these companies have managed to keep these efforts hidden from the public. Sabotaging a competitor is generally the sort of thing done in secrecy, behind closed boardroom doors, rather than in full view of the general public and Samsung employees. Maybe the market is too large to keep the gloves on and the cutthroat tactics obscured. Any portion of $400 billion is a whole lot of money and the potential gain of a few points in market share could be tantalizing enough to persuade large companies to put their reputation on the line with the open appearance of mob-level impropriety. ("Nice washing machine you got here. Be a shame if the door didn't close properly.")

Money -- especially that much money -- does strange things to normally logical people. In the underrated Way of the Gun, when a long-time criminal is asked why he would do something terrible for a motivator as supposedly weak as "just money," he responds:

Not money, 15 million dollars. Fifteen million dollars is not money, it's a motive with a universal adaptor on it.

What's a few $2700 washers (and a few indictments) in a $400 billion market? Not enough to be of consequence and certainly not enough of a deterrent to head off future brute force attacks on competitors. I, for one, welcome our corporate giants' embrace of low-level thuggery, which is more interesting and more relatable than a string of noncommittal and obfuscatory sentences hidden in the back pages of quarterly SEC filings. I'm looking forward to a world where demographic groups are captured not via Super Bowl ads and targeted marketing, but by competitors tripping "check engine" lights in competitors' showroom vehicles or pinstriped execs hacking the home screen of the latest connected home thingie to display nothing but a steady stream of porn shots.

This is the future we consumers deserve. Too many products fail to excite buyers, what with a preponderance of me-too styling and features. If the products don't move us, maybe the companies themselves will. It's time to be wowed by the gutsiest display of executive-level disregard for corporate propriety. We need our business leaders to step up and vow to be the next Suge Knight or Broad Street Bullies of their respective fields. Even if LG's execs didn't actually break Samsung's washer doors, they should be commended for their willingness to stroll into a public place and give every appearance that they were doing exactlythat.

from the I-hear-the-secrets-that-you-keep/when-you-talk-by-the-TV dept

Guess who's eavesdropping on you now? It's not some nefarious government agency (although, rest assured, there has been no downturn in surveillance). Nope, it's that smart TV you paid good money for and invited into your home.

The "now" is misleading. Smart TVs have been doing this ever since manufacturers decided customers preferred to order their electronics around orally, rather than using the remote they can never find. And that's just the "eavesdropping" part. Most smart TVs are harvesting plenty of data on top of that, including viewing habits, search terms, browsing history… pretty much anything that makes a TV "smart" is collected and transmitted not just to the manufacturer, but to plenty of unknown third parties. Usually, this information is used to send "relevant ads" to TV owners, as if the several hundred dollars spent on the device wasn't enough of a revenue stream.

Samsung -- which is currently catching a lot of internet heat for its so-called "Privacy Policy" -- is no exception. It's the wording used that's making it the target du jour, turning other recent privacy policy villains (LG: "agree to share damn near everything or enjoy your super-expensive 'stupid' TV"; Microsoft: "why don't we just treat your living room like a movie theater and use our camera technology to count heads and charge increased VOD 'admission'") into distant memories.

To provide you the Voice Recognition feature, some voice commands may be transmitted (along with information about your device, including device identifiers) to a third-party service that converts speech to text or to the extent necessary to provide the Voice Recognition features to you. In addition, Samsung may collect and your device may capture voice commands and associated texts so that we can provide you with Voice Recognition features and evaluate and improve the features. Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition.

Obviously, some very temporary "collection" and "transmission" needs to take place to allow a third party service to "recognize" the user's voice and ensure the smart TV does what it's told. But Samsung also collects and captures these communications... and it doesn't really say how, where or for how long these are stored.

Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition.

with Orwell's:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment…

You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Fun stuff. The only thing missing from the scenario is a government intermediary. But it's not much a stretch to insert one.

It could certainly be construed that any personal communications collected and stored by Samsung would fall under the Third Party Doctrine. If a government agency (local law enforcement, FBI, etc.) wishes to acquire these, they wouldn't face much of a challenge because of the lowered expectation of privacy. If Suspect X is viewed carrying a Samsung smart TV into his home, law enforcement could issue a subpoena to Samsung to acquire any voice recordings it had collected from that device. Eavesdropping by proxy. Discuss a drug deal in front of the TV? Here come the cops. No warrants or wiretaps needed.

This hypothetical would require law enforcement to know the device's ID number, something that would be hard to obtain without an actual search warrant. In the most likely scenario, the voice recognition data would be collected after a regular search had been completed. Now, previous conversations people thought no one heard could be introduced as evidence against them, thanks to the widescreen narc installed on the premises.

Here's a hypothetical that's even more "fun" to consider: a law enforcement agency is aware certain smart TVs collect and store voice recordings (along with viewing habits, internet browsing history, search terms, etc.) So, officers kick off a gun amnesty program where unregistered weapons can be turned in for free big screen TVs. Now, this law enforcement agency has a small army of hi-def confidential informants installed in numerous homes. All data can be collected at the agency's convenience, using little more than the "unregistered guns must belong solely to criminals" rationale.

But Samsung isn't the only device manufacturer collecting, storing and transmitting its customers' everyday conversations. Others do it, too. Some just hide it better. In LG's 50+ pages of smart TV fine print, it says the following about voice recognition:

I agree that LG Electronics Inc. ("LGE") may process Voice Information in the manner set out in the Privacy Policy and below.

Voice Information refers to the recording of voice commands and associated data, such as information about the input device that is used to record commands (e.g., Magic Remote or built-in microphone), OS information, TV model information, content provider, channel information and service results.

I understand and agree that Voice Information may be use for the purpose of powering the voice activation feature when used to control, receive, and improve LG Smart TV Services and as described in the Privacy Policy.

I further understand and agree that LGE may share Voice Information with third parties, including providers of voice analytics.

I understand and agree that Voice Information may be transferred to, and used by, third party service providers on LGE's behalf in various countries around the world (including Korea), some of which may not offer the same level of data protection, for the purposes set out in the Privacy Policy.

And there's your Third Party Doctrine. All anyone arguing for the right to subpoena voice information has to do is point to the User Agreement as clear evidence that the person in question is voluntarily turning over voice recordings to a third party. And away goes the expectation of privacy.

We don't expect our devices to send overheard conversations to anyone other than the voice recognition technology provider. But they do. And they send it (and store it) without providing any specifics about the unnamed third parties, where they're located, how secure these transmissions are (to protect them from criminals -- the other unwanted "third parties") or how long the manufacturer itself retains this data.

The transparency level of these manufacturers rivals that of the government. And that's not a good thing, because it makes it far too easy for them to become willing partners with agencies that thrive on the abuse of the Third Party Doctrine. Samsung -- and manufacturers like it -- need to provide more than vague assurances. They need to explicitly explain what's happening to all the data they're collecting, especially when the collection involves entertainment devices listening in on private conversations... and calling it a "feature."

from the privacy-policy-lobotomy dept

Because I will not agree to LG's Privacy Policy, I can now no longer access/use any of of the TV's network based programs: Iplayer, Skype, 3D etc.

As of the 7th May following a software update to our less than two year old LG TV. I was confronted with a message asking me to read and agree with a couple of important new documents. So like a good little citizen I read and agreed with the first doc regarding use of said TV. but having read the Privacy Doc I was not best pleased with the companies assumption that I would simply agree to their sharing all our intimate viewing details (plus what ever else they can see)with all and sundry.

Since I agreed not to hack into installed software (as if I Could)We cannot get around the block.

I think the company must be in breach of contract since the smart functions are no longer available. Surely in the uk at least you should not be able to change the goal posts at will. Any one sorted this problem yet??

Before some smart alec says "Take It back". We bought the set because it satisfied our criteria at the time. We did not expect some legal bully to come along nearly two years later and tell us to share all our information with the world OR ELSE??

Oldlad poses good questions. Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties?

LG certainly feels it has the right to do this. In fact, it makes no secret of this in its long Privacy Policy -- a document that spends more time discussing the lack thereof, rather than privacy itself. The opening paragraph makes this perfectly clear.

Our Privacy Policy explains and seeks your agreement for how we collect, use, and share information that we obtain as a result of your use of LG Smart TV Services, as well as how we use cookies. You do not have to agree to the Privacy Policy but if you do not, not all Smart TV Services will be available to you. [emphasis added] In that case, we will still receive certain non-identifying information from your Smart TV that we need to provide the basic functions that will be available.

So, even if you don't agree to share information, you'll still be sharing information. To top it off, you won't be able to use many of the functions that put the "smart" into LG's Smart TV.

Here's a list of just some of the information LG grabs in order to ensure your Smart TV can be its smartest.

Viewing Information. This refers to information about your interactions with program content, including live TV content, movies, and video on demand. Viewing Information may include the name of the channel or program watched, requests to view content, the terms you use to search for content, details of actions taken while viewing (e.g., play, stop, pause, etc.), the duration that content was watched, input method (RF, Component, HDMI) and search queries.

Additional information will be collected if you use the "smart" features, most of which require the creation of an LG SmartWorld account.

For example, some of our services require that you become a member of LG SmartWorld, which may be subject to separate terms. You may join LG SmartWorld either through your LG Smart TV or by other means, such as through certain LG websites. This Membership Information may include your user ID, password, telephone number, name, date of birth, gender, email address, address, social networking service ID, security question answers, purchase history, and related payment information, such as credit card information or details of your PayPal account and more.

There's nothing particularly unusual about the LG SmartWorld data being collected, considering its tied to paid services and apps. The greater concern would be the wealth of viewing information (including "internet searches") that's collected as part of a person's non-"smart" usage.

This concern grows when you see the list of potential recipients of this information.

•When you use LivePlus, we may share certain Viewing Information, Device Information, and Basic Usage Information with third parties for advertising or analytics purposes and to enable the provision of information relevant to what you are viewing;

•To third party vendors that LGE may engage to provide services on its behalf from time to time, such as to collect payment for content you purchase or to fulfill customer service requests or to provide advertising services

LG seems very concerned that Smart TV owners won't allow it to provide them with "relevant ads." This focus on advertising might give one the impression that a Smart TV is subsidized by ad sales, rather than paid for completely by the end user.

When LG was caught sending plaintext data on files stored on customers' USB devices, it amended its policies and data collection tactics to exclude this data. This happened not on the strength of a customer complaint (in fact, LG told the customer to take it up with the store that sold him the TV) but because the UK government announced its intention to dig into LG's practices and see if they conformed with the Data Protection Act.

While it may have removed that particularly egregious bit of data slurping, it still intends to gather as much data as possible in order to deliver advertising, something almost every purchaser would be willing to see less of. Oldlad asks whether the company can, under UK law, simply "move the goalposts" at will, thereby providing customers with a product with fewer features than the one they purchased.

enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided

LG presenting customers with the false choice of a) giving up control of their data or b) losing access to a great deal of the Smart TV features could be construed as "altering the characteristics of the product." A lot would depend on the investigating agency's definition of "valid reason." LG's Privacy Policy claims that most of what it collects is essential to provide these "smart" services. Indeed, many of them are. But there's also plenty in that wording that indicates LG is collecting additional information solely for the purpose of providing ads. Whether or not that's a legally "valid reason" is still up for discussion.

In its defense, LG may point to the fact that this Privacy Notice is published online and could be accessed by anyone looking to purchase a Smart TV. While factually correct, the reality of the situation is that the same number of people who would proactively search out privacy policies and T&Cs before purchasing a product are roughly the same number that would balk at clicking the "Accept" button on a dialog box post-firmware update -- statistically insignificant. That number would leap appreciably if LG's intentions were laid bare in the Privacy Policy dialog box, stating something to the effect that agreeing to the policy meant allowing LG to collect and disseminate search terms, search queries and content viewed to third parties.

Being upfront doesn't result in nearly as much profitable data, however. And those who opt out, like Oldlad, are left with plain, vanilla TV rather than the smarter version they shelled out extra for.

from the self-hacking? dept

[Update: hole has been closed by ACB's IT team]

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is so severely flawed that people are extremely hesitant to report security holes in websites, especially after witnessing what happened to Weev (Andrew Auernheimer), who went to jail for exposing a flaw in AT&T's site that exposed user info when values in the URL were incremented.

"I remember a person was recently arrested for finding this same flaw in a website and told (at&t/apple??) about it. He was arrested and jailed if I remember right. This is the type of chilling effects that come when people view techies as hackers and are arrested for pointing out flaws.

Is that overdramatic? Doubtful. People have reported security flaws to companies only to have these entities press charges, file lawsuits or otherwise tell them to shut up. Weev's only out because the government's case was brought in the wrong venue. The CFAA, which has been used to punish many helpful people, is still intact and as awful as ever.

As the (also anonymous) redditor points out, he or she has tried to contact the company but has found no avenue to address this security hole which exposes names, addresses and email addresses of customers sending in claims for a free year of Netflix streaming that came bundled with their purchase of an LG Smart TV. Incrementing the digits at the end of the URL brings up other claims, some with images of receipts attached. In addition, anyone can upload support documents to these claims.

Here's a screenshot of the hole in question:

As the original poster points out, with a little coding, someone could put together a database of addresses that most likely house a brand new LG Smart TV. And this may not just be limited to LG. ACB Incentives is the company behind this promotion, and it handles the same sort of online rebate forms for a variety of companies. These rebate submission sites all branch off acbincentives.com, which could mean it's just a matter of figuring out how each one handles submitted claims, URL-wise.

Now, I've contacted the company to let them know. Amanda Phelps at the Memphis branch says she's bringing it to the attention of programming. I also let her know that it may affect other rebate pages but that I can't confirm that. We'll see how quickly this is closed*, but all in all, the people at ACB seemed to be concerned and helpful, rather than suspcious.

*Very quickly, it appears. See note at top of post.

But the underlying point remains. Many people who discover these flaws aren't criminals and aren't looking to expose the data of thousands of unsuspecting users. They're simply concerned that this is happening and often incredulous that major companies would be this careless with customers' data. That the kneejerk reaction has often been to shoot the messenger definitely gives those discovering these holes second thoughts as to reporting them, a hesitation that could allow someone with more nefarious aims to exploit the exposed data. The law needs to change, and so does the attitude that anyone discovering a flaw must be some sort of evil hacker -- or that the entity must do whatever it takes, even if it means throwing the CFAA at someone, just to prevent a little embarrassment.

from the oh,-NOW-you're-on-it dept

Before companies expend a ton of effort into managing their social media activities, they should spend some time getting acquainted with how the internet actually works. The net provides a framework for information to spread around the world nearly instantaneously. The lesson here is that there's no such thing as an "isolated incident." You can't just blow off one person's complaint simply because it came from one person. Because it's never going to be just one person. It's going to be thousands. Or millions. [There will always be time later to leverage the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to sell products.]

[W]hen the BBC contacted LG, it indicated it was looking into the complaint.

"Customer privacy is a top priority at LG Electronics and as such, we take this issue very seriously," said a spokesman.

"We are looking into reports that certain viewing information on LG Smart TVs was shared without consent.

LG originally blew off the blogger's complaint because, hey, it was just one guy. But it's never "one guy." Not anymore. The story has now been covered worldwide and has caught the attention of the UK's regulatory body charged with enforcing data privacy laws.

The Information Commissioner's Office told the BBC it was looking into the issue.

"We have recently been made aware of a possible data breach which may involve LG Smart TVs," said a spokesman.

"We will be making enquiries into the circumstances of the alleged breach of the Data Protection Act before deciding what action, if any, needs to be taken."

To hugely repurpose a Bible verse, if you do this to the least of my brethren, you've pretty much done it to everyone. Companies can't afford to offhandedly dismiss single complaints. At the very least, their responses need to be tailored to specific issue rather than just a boilerplate regurgitation that lets the complainant know he or she isn't being heard.

And when implementing policies or altering terms and conditions, companies need to think each addition or subtraction through very carefully. Rather than assume no one will ever find out because no one reads T&C pages, companies need to ask themselves, "What would happen if EVERYONE found out about this?" Because the likelihood is that everyone will. And unless your social media strategy is solely composed of unplugging accounts when faced with multiple raging fires, whatever you have implemented at the moment isn't going to be up to the task should you opt to do something regrettable.

The world may be composed of individuals, but "getting screwed by a company" is a universal concept. Nothing unites people faster than outrage. Keep that in mind before you start siphoning data without permission or ruining people's credit record with fraudulent charges.

In a statement, LG said that its smart TVs collect viewing information like channel, TV platform, and broadcast source in order to "deliver more relevant advertisements and to offer recommendations to viewers based on what other LG Smart TV owners are watching."

The company's TVs include the option to turn off this data collection, but "we have verified that even when this function is turned off by the viewers, it continues to transmit viewing information although the data is not retained by the server," LG said.

"A firmware update is being prepared for immediate rollout that will correct this problem on all affected LG Smart TVs so when this feature is disabled, no data will be transmitted," the company said.

Now, if it can just get it to stop scanning attached drives and gathering that data as well... Until that's addressed, at least simply turning off the data transmission will keep that info from going anywhere.]

from the if-you-give-a-TV-an-internet-connection... dept

The growing presence of "smart" devices, each one requiring a connection to the outside world, is a bit alarming (Samsung TV zero day exploit, anyone?). The territory still remains largely uncharted and device manufacturers are still pretty much free to decide just how much data these devices will cough up when phoning home.

The endearingly sexist sales pitch attempting to sell other pitchmen on LG's "smart" ad platform/TV makes it pretty clear that LG's TV is very interested in any "interactions" you have with your device.

What the sales pitch failed to make clear is that LG will be grabbing this behavioral data no matter what.

In fact, there is an option in the system settings called "Collection of watching info:" which is set ON by default. This setting requires the user to scroll down to see it and, unlike most other settings, contains no "balloon help" to describe what it does...

At this point, I decided to do some traffic analysis to see what was being sent. It turns out that viewing information appears to be being sent regardless of whether this option is set to On or Off.

Not only was LG sucking up viewer data, it was sending the data on each interaction completely unencrypted. This isn't necessarily a huge problem if the data collection was limited to the channel watched and for what length of time. But as the increasingly creepy sales pitch above points out, LG also wants "search keywords" and a potentially unlimited amount of "other information."

At this point, LG already has a bit of privacy problem. Sending data on channel selection is one thing. Collecting and sending unencrypted web data like search terms is quite another. And it gets even worse.

It was at this point, I made an even more disturbing find within the packet data dumps. I noticed filenames were being posted to LG's servers and that these filenames were ones stored on my external USB hard drive.

DoctorBeet tested his hunch by mocking up an .avi file that would be immediately distinguishable from any other "normal" traffic. Plugging in a USB stick with the bait (Midget_Porn_2013.avi) into his TV, DoctorBeet soon saw data on his faux porn headed to LG's servers in unencrypted plain text. DoctorBeet (and his shocked wife) also watched his children's names being harvested from the file name of a Christmas video located on another connected drive. [Click picture to open a full size version in another tab.]

The implications of this data collection are huge. As DoctorBeet points out, it's simply an invasion of privacy at best. Who knows what ads LG might serve when faced with a hard drive full of porn? Who knows what it might do if it goes trolling through media files at the behest of publishers, studios and labels? It's not tough to imagine a scenario where "connected" files become bricked because of a perceived lack of license. As we've seen before, companies are seeking to patent methods of utilizing connected devices (like the now-mandatory Xbox "camera") to determine who's enjoying what content for ad-serving purposes/licensing fee extraction.

If nothing else, a "smart" TV shouldn't be gathering, much less sending, file data back home from customers' non-LG devices. The fact that LG does this in unencrypted form is also troubling. The fact that LG does this even when you specifically tell it not to is the sort of thing that becomes the basis for a class action lawsuit.

Further to our previous email to yourself, we have escalated the issues you reported to LG's UK Head Office.

The advice we have been given is that unfortunately as you accepted the Terms and Conditions on your TV, your concerns would be best directed to the retailer. We understand you feel you should have been made aware of these T's and C's at the point of sale, and for obvious reasons LG are unable to pass comment on their actions.

We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again.

"Sorry" if you misunderstood the Terms and Conditions you were compelled to accept if you wanted to use your new purchase. "Sorry" these same terms and conditions nullified your preferences on sending data without your permission. Oh, and by the way, not our fault -- the helpful people with the name tags at your local electronics store should have been intimately familiar with the Terms and Conditions of our entire product line and ensured that potential customers knew they were purchasing a SPY TV rather than a SMART TV.

If you have any other questions about our intrusive data collections, please don't hesitate to fuck off and die.

LG's representation may not care (at the moment) whether DoctorBeet feels LG's watching him more than he's watching its TV, but as this story continues to spread across the internet, I would imagine its tune will change. And when that changes, hopefully it will alter the Terms and Conditions as well.

People don't implicitly surrender their privacy when they attach a "smart" device to the internet. There are responsible ways to collect data and responsible ways to protect this data and, from what's being shown here, LG is doing neither.

from the troll-troll-troll-troll dept

Back when I moved to Silicon Valley, Silicon Graphics Inc., (SGI) was still a hot place to work. They were still pumping out cool machines and had a reputation for a fun corporate culture. Of course, that collapsed pretty quickly over the next few years, as SGI totally misjudged the market trends and fell victim to the innovator's dilemma. Basically, SGI never could come to terms with the fact that its premium products were going to be increasingly undercut as cheaper commodity technology improved. Back in 2006, we noted that what remained of SGI had indicated that it planned to resurrect the company by going patent troll. However, we thought we'd avoided that ignoble result when SGI sold most of its assets to Rackable for a mere $25 million three years ago. Silly us for assuming those patents would just go away.

While Rackable changed its name to Silicon Graphics International... the original company actually retained the patents, and renamed itself Graphics Properties Holdings... and over the last few years has been suing lots of companies for patent infringement. In the last year alone it has sued Apple, HTC, LG, RIM, Samsung, Sony, Acer, ASUS, Panasonic, Sharp, Toshiba, Vizio and Motorola Mobility.

As the link above notes, while some of GPH's patents are relatively early, it appears that lots of similar inventions predated key patents. However, the early date may make those patents look stronger, and give GPH much more leverage in getting companies to pay up -- or risk losing the ability to produce devices with nice graphics capabilities.

from the karma dept

We've been talking about how ridiculously aggressive Sony has been lately in enforcing its intellectual property rights concerning PS3s, so it seems like there might be a bit of karmic retribution in the fact that a shipment of PS3s has been seized in Europe as part of an ongoing legal fight with LG over patents covering parts of the PS3. I'm always amazed at how frequently companies who push for stronger and stronger enforcement of IP laws never seem to consider the consequences when those laws are directed at their own activities. While a court has just lifted the injunction, the issue is far from over. Back here in the US, the ITC is starting its own investigation into LG's claims and could issue an injunction against importing PS3s as well.

from the but-of-course dept

If Sony can't kill off interest in the PS3 by playing whac-a-mole with jailbreak code, perhaps it can get some assistance from the US government. It appears that LG, using the ITC loophole is asking the International Trade Commission to block the import of PS3s into the US for supposedly violating four of its patents.

The patents in question:

7,701,835: Recording medium having data structure for managing reproduction of data streams recorded thereon and recording and reproducing methods and apparatuses

7,577,080: Recording medium with a linking area thereon and apparatus and methods for forming recording, and reproducing the recording medium